A GRAMMATICAL AMBIGUITY IN 1 PET 1:23

From earliest Christian times, a grammatical ambiguity has troubled the literary and theological exegesis of 1 Pet 1:2s.1 The problem bears on the agreement of the two participles in the phrase dia logou sontos theou kai menontos. In NT Greek, attributive adjectives and participles may either precede or follow the noun they modify.2 Zontos could thus modify either logou or theou. The agreement of menontos, which is verbally separated from zontos by one of the substantives but closely joined to it by kai, depends on that of zontos. Both participles must be construed with the same noun. Since attributes usually modify the closest substantive, the two participles could very well modify theou. On the other hand, if the position of kai menontos is emphatic, they could just as well be related to logou. Exegetical History The early Greek commentaries3 on 1 Pet consistently construed both participles with logou without alluding explicitly to the above-noted ambiguity. The relevant passages in these commentaries have not been preserved
Since much of the discussion in the present article refers to stylistic elements in 1 Pet 1:22-23, the following structural analysis will prove helpful: vs. 22 Tas psychos 'ymn 'gnikotes en t 'ypako tes aitheias eis philadelphian anypokriton, ek kardias alllous agapsate ektens, vs. 23 anagegennmenoi ouk ek sporas phtharts alla aphthartou, dia logou sontos theou kai menontos Each of the three clauses has three members. The main clause is situated between the two subordinate clauses, each of which is basically composed of a perfect participle and two prepositional phrases. The first of these clauses is in the active voice; the second is passive. Such a structure, in a letter noted for its stylistic excellence, is not accidental. 2 James Hope Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963) III, 349. 3 Clement of Alexandria, PG 9, 729; Oecumenius, PG 119, 527-528; Theophylactus, PG 125, 1203-1206. The commentary of Didymus of Alexandria (PG 39, 1761) leaves no doubt that he construed both participles with logou.
1

89

90

T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY

[Vol.

36

in Greek but in Latin translations. It is possible that the ambiguity was actually maintained in the original texts and resolved by the translators. In so acting, however, the translators would have stood in opposition to the generality of Latin commentators,4 who related both participles directly to theou. The apparent unanimity among Latin commentators probably stems from the influence of the Vulgate rendering of the text as per verbum Dei vivi et permanentis. Calvin5 may have been the first explicitly to call attention to the ambiguity inherent in the Greek text. He resolved the difficulty on the basis of the parallelism between the words logou and sporas: anagegennmenoi ouk ek SPORAS phtharts alia aphthartou,
dia LOGOU zontos theou kai menontos.

Since the seed is said to be incorruptible, it appears more logical to relate zontos and menontos grammatically to logou, in quo ilia Dei perpetuitas relucet, tamquam in vivo speculo. Bengel6 drew the same conclusion by interpreting 1:23 in the light of 1:25, which states that verbum Dei manet in aeternum. Among modern commentators, Johnstone,7 Bigg,8 Selwyn9 and Spicq10 shared both the approach and the conclusion of Calvin and Bengel and related the participles to logou. Grotius, 11 on the other hand, attached both participles to theou on the basis of a possible relationship between 1 Pet 1:23 and the Greek text of Dan 6:27, theos zn kai menon. Estius 12 came to the same conclusion but
Cassiodorus, PL 70, 1363-1364; Martin, PL 209, 223; Bede the Venerable, PL 93, 46-47; Cajetan, Epistolae Pauli et aliorum Apostolorum (Venetiis, 1532) 177B ; Hugo de Sancto Charo, Tomus Septimus, "Postilla super I Epistolam Canonicam B. Petri," (Venetiis: Apud Nicolaum Pezzano, MDCCLIV) 326B-327A. 5 J. Calvinus, Opera quae supersunt omnia (Corpus Reformatorum, LXXXIII), Opera esegetica et homiletica (Brunsvigae: C.A. Schwetschke, 1896), 33, 228-229. 6 Bengel, Gnomon Novi Testamenti. (Tubingae: Schramm, 1742) 1007. 7 R. Johnstone, Commentary on the First Epistle of Peter (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1888) 107-108. 8 C. Bigg, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude. (ICC, 2d ed; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902) 123. 9 E. G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter. (2d ed.; London: Macmillan & Co. Ltd., 1947) 151. 10 C. Spicq, Les Epitres de Saint Pierre. (Sources Bibliques; Paris: Gabalda, 1966) 76. 11 H. Grotius, Annotata ad Actus Apostlicos, Epstolas et Apocalypsim, sive Criticorum Sacrorum. (Londoni: J. Flasher, MDCLX), Tomus VII, c. 4509. 12 G. Estius, In Omnes D. Pauli Epstolas item in Catholicas Commentant. (Moguntiae: Kirchheim, 1859), Tomus III, pp. 506-507.
4

1974]

SHORTER

COMMUNICATIONS

91

appears to have been influenced by systematic considerations: the participles must modify theou, since the permanence of God's word is expressed in 24-25. This last argument no longer retains the attention of commentators. Hort 13 and Bishop,14 however, shared the view proposed by Grotius and attached the participles to theou. Beare15 leaned towards the same position but added that the two adjectives should perhaps be attached to both logou and theou. Among contemporary translations of the NT, the Revised Standard Version, The Anchor Bible and the New American Bible related the participles to logou: "through the living and abiding (NAB: enduring) word of God." The New English Bible did the same, but proposed an alternate translation: "through the word of the living and enduring God." The Goodspeed and Knox Bibles, as well as the French editions of the Jerusalem Bible, construed the participles with theou. The English edition of the Jerusalem Bible combined both possibilities in a free translation: "from the everlasting word of the living and eternal God." Elements for a Solution Several philological and literary considerations, coupled with the observations and principles adduced by Calvin and Bengel, indicate that this longstanding problem is open to solution. The following analysis points away from a construction with theou and clearly favors a direct agreement with logou. The role of the preposition dia has definite bearing on the problem. In the present context, dia with the genitive expresses an instrumental relationship between anagegennmenoi and logou. The logos is thus the means, the cause or the mediating principle through which christians have been regenerated. Theou enters the phrase as an active genitive qualifying logou. God is thus the agent of regeneration through the word. Were the phrase to be stated in the active voice, the participles might well be related to theou, which would then be the subject and main substantive in its clause. In its passive expression, however, the main substantive is clearly logou. The normal construction would consequently relate the participles to logou through which regeneration has been effected. A special reason would be required to judge otherwise. The clear parallelism between the expressions dia logou and ek sporas
Hort, cf. Selwyn, First Epistle, p. 151 and Bigg, A Critical, p. 123. Eric F. F. Bishop, "A Living and Unchanging God in I Peter 1,23," The Muslim World 43 (1953) 15-17. 15 F. W. Beare, The First Epistle of Peter. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1970) 112.
14 13

92

T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY

[Vol.

36

provides an independent confirmation. Like the word logou, sporas represents a means of regeneration. As the difference in prepositions indicates, however, the relationship of the two terms to regeneration is not identical. The word spora is a metaphorical term drawn from plant life which appears nowhere else in the NT. Its primary meaning is the "sowing of seed" or the "seeding/' When it is related to a passive form of the verb, its meaning becomes "the seed which has been sown." Many authors translate the term as an equivalent of sperma, seed. It should be noted that 1 Pet 1:23 is the only reference given by Liddell and Scott16 for this meaning. Given this contextual interpretation of the term spora, the difference between the prepositions ek and dia becomes highly significant. The term spora refers to an intrinsic incorruptible (aphthartou) source of regenerated life. The word logos, on the other hand, refers to an extrinsic principle or instrument of regeneration. Such a relationship between the substantives would normally imply a similar relationship between their respective attributes. The incorruptible quality of the seed which has been sown is thus accounted for by the living and enduring qualities of the logos. The participles zontos and menontos share in the instrumental dynamism of the logos and take on the nuance of "life-giving" and "conferring of permanence." The word as received (spora) is incorruptible because it reflects the permanence of the word as given (logos) by God. The above observations concerning the prepositional phrase dia logou and its relationship to ek sporas in 1:23 find additional confirmation in an analysis of the entire sentence. First, the clause we have been considering is structurally parallel to the opening clause of the sentence. The obvious distinction between the prepositions en and eis confirms the distinction between ek and dia. Secondly, just as the second prepositional phrase in 1:22 is not only parallel to the first but in a way subordinate and qualifying with regard to it, so also must dia logou be subordinate and qualifying with regard to ek sporas. The intentionality expressed by eis philadelphian anypokriton refers not merely to fgnikotes but to tas psychos 'ymn e gnikotes en t 'ypako tes altheias. Correspondingly, the extrinsic causality indicated by dia logou refers not simply to anagegennmenoi but to anagegennmenoi . . . ek sporas . . . Thirdly, just as the attribute anypokriton corresponded dynamically to the genitive tes altheias, so also must zontos kai menontos correspond to aphthartou. Such a correspondence requires that zontos kai menontos modify logou just as aphthartou modifies sporas.
16

Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford, 1940), at this word.

1974]

SHORTER COMMUNICATIONS

93

The above considerations, which are based on a philological and literary analysis of the prepositional phrase, of the clause in which it stands and of the entire sentence is supported by the lengthy development of dia . . . menontos in a quotation of Isa 40:6-8 (1:24-25). The point of this quotation is precisely that the word of the Lord endures forever (to de 'rema kyriou menei eis ton ina). The author himself seems to have resolved the difficulty. Relating the participles to theou rather than logou would seem to presuppose that the terms constitute part of a stereotyped expression and that they have been removed from a direct relationship to the incorruptibility of the seed which has been sown. The author would have expressed a relationship between the incorruptibility of the seed and the life and permanence of God, with the implication that these qualities are communicated through the word. Such a stereotyped expression could perhaps be related to Dan 6:27. There is no evidence, however, of such an expression having become current. Further, the very structure of the phrase, in which the words zontos and menontos are sharply separated from one another, indicates that the usage in this text is not stereotyped. Rather, it represents a deliberate effort at emphasis in a carefully constructed sentence. Just as anypokriton parallels both tes altheias and ek kardias, so also does kai menontos parallel both alia aphthartou and ektens. A final indication stems from the position of the present participle zn in the three cases where it is used attributively in the first major section of the letter (1:3-2:10). In all three cases the participle follows the noun it modifies: elpida zsan (1:3), lithon znta (2:4) and lithoi zontas (2:5). This argument, however, is admittedly weak, since examples are few and the author's usage does not reveal the same consistency in the case of other adjectives and participles. Conclusion and Implications The convergence of grammatical, philological and literary indications points to one conclusion: that the two participles zontos and menontos modify logou directly and are related only indirectly to theou. The analysis also indicates a dynamic relationship between the logos and the spora in Christian regeneration as well as in the regenerated life which flows from it. This emphasis on the continuing effects of regeneration is best understood if the unity of this part of the letter is maintained. Authors have long pointed out that the epistle has two contexts, one of persecution and one of baptismal regeneration. Perhaps the author has used a primitive baptismal source or tradition. His emphasis, however, is not on the original

94

T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY

[Vol.

36

moment of regeneration, but on how regeneration constitutes a continuing basis for a Christian attitude. This very preoccupation seems to have been occasioned by the persecution context. Vss. 22-25 are thus an exhortation to continued effort in spite of difficulties. The attribution of both and menn to the logos was not foreign to early Christian thought, as is clear from Heb 4:12 ( gar (o logos tou theou) and 1 Jn who writes "concerning the word of life" (peri tou logou tes zos) (1:1) and declares that "the word of God endures in you" (kai logos tou theou en (ymin menei (2:14). Our conclusion is consonant with the interpretation of the early Greek commentaries and agrees with the position taken long ago by Calvin and Bengel. A good translation is that of the New American Bible: "through the living and enduring word of God."
EUGENE A. LAVERDIERE, S.S.S.

John Carroll University University Heights Cleveland, Ohio 44118

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.